AWS FSx 与 S3 文件网关
假设我需要在 AWS 上拥有相当于 NAS 的共享来替换我的本地 NAS 服务器。我发现 FSx 和 S3 文件网关这两种解决方案都允许拥有 SMB 协议接口。所以他们也会以同样的方式向客户展示自己。 如果可以接受较慢的性能，则使用 S3 支持的 Storage Gateway 处理大容量的成本会小得多。这是唯一的区别吗？
从实际角度来看，使用一种解决方案与另一种解决方案有何区别？
我并不是故意提及具体的用例，只是想将讨论保持在一般水平上。
谢谢， 问候。
let's suppose I have the need to have a NAS-equivalent share on AWS that will replace my on-prem NAS server. I see that both solutions, FSx and S3 File Gateway, allow to have a SMB protocol interface. So they will present themselves to clients in the same way.
Costs would be much smaller using Storage Gateway backed by S3 for large volumes, if slower performance are acceptable. Is this the only difference?
What are the differences, from a practical perspective, to use one solution over the other?
I'm not mentioning the specific use case on purpose, just want to keep the discussion at a general level.
Thanks,
Regards.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
FSx 是文件系统服务，S3 是对象存储。文件网关可以“欺骗”您的操作系统，让其“认为”S3 是一个文件系统，但事实并非如此。
尝试创建 s3 存储桶 & FSx 文件系统，选项有很大不同。如果您通过文件网关使用它，我将主要研究数据发布上传到 aws 时发生的情况，您下一步会做什么。如果它只是一个备份，并且您希望将无限空间的网络磁盘驱动器连接到您的设备，我会选择 s3。
在 s3 中，您选择存储类别而不用担心容量，在 Fsx 中，您确实担心这些事情，您选择 SSD/HDD，设置容量，最小可以是 32Gb，因此技术性质导致您过度配置。您还可以向文件系统设备中放入的数据量有上限 (65536 GiB)。我总是会选择 S3，除非您有一些特定要求，不选择 S3 来存储数据，同时它具有完美的生命周期、存储类、版本控制、内置安全性，而且它是真正的云无服务器服务，可以放心地工作，并且您不会遇到磁盘空间不足等传统问题。
FSx is file system service and S3 is objects storage. File Gateway can "trick" your OS to "think" that S3 is a file system, but it isn't.
Try creating s3 bucket & FSx file system, options are very different. If you use it through file gateway, i would look mostly into what happens with data post upload to aws, what will you do next. If it's just a backup and you want to have unlimited space network disk drive attached to your device, i would pick s3.
In s3 you pick storage classes and not worry about capacity, in Fsx you do worry about those things, you pick SSD/HDD, you set capacity, which minimum could be 32Gb, so you over provision by nature of tech. You also have ceilings of how much data you can put into file system device (65536 GiB). I would pick S3 always except when you have some specific requirements for not picking S3 to store data while it has perfect lifecycle, storage class, versioning, security built in and it's true cloud serverless service with all the peace of mind that it just works and you don't run to traditional issues like out of disk space.